Monday, April 30, 2012

Long story short, Barack Obama's campaign created an ad questioning whether Mitt Romney would have ordered the raid that killed bin Laden. Conservatives criticized the notion and the ad.

Today we see even the pro-Obama, far left liberal, (for now) Arianna Huffington is saying Obama's ad "is one of the most despicable things you can do..."

Full exchange below.

[WATCH]

The full exchange:

HUFFINGTON: I agree completely — I agree with the Romney campaign.
I think that using the Osama bin Laden assassination, killing the great
news that we had a year ago in order to say basically that Obama did it
and Romney might not have done it, which is the message. … I don’t
think there should be an ad about that. … [T]o turn it into a campaign
ad is one of the most despicable things you can do. It’s the same thing that Hillary Clinton did with the 3 a.m. call. You know, you are not ready to be commander-in-chief. [...]

HOST: In a campaign aren’t you supposed to tout the accomplishments of what you’ve done?

HUFFINGTON: But this is not just what this ad did, does. What the ad
does is questions, if we’re talking about the same ad. … It quotes a
snippet from Romney in ’07 and uses that to imply that Romney would not
have been decisive. There’s no way to know whether Romney would have been as decisive. And to actually speculate that he wouldn’t be is to me not the way to run campaigns on either side.

Obama's 2008 campaign spokesman actually agrees with Huffington, or so he said in 2008. Flashback via ABC News:

The Obama campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, accused the Clinton team of playing “the politics of fear” just like George W. Bush.

Burton, now the head of the Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA,
said at the time: “When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to
authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that
diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed
Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network. It’s
ironic that she would borrow the President’s tactics in her own campaign
and invoke bin Laden to score political points. We already have a
President who plays the politics of fear, and we don’t need another.

Mitt Romney, asked if he would have given the order to go after Osama
Bin Laden, as President Obama's new video and his campaign aides have
suggested he wouldn't have done, per POLITICO's Ginger Gibson: "Of
course, even Jimmy Carter would have given that order."

So many ways this can and probably will backfire against progressives and another example of how one of their "campaigns" are going to end up making it harder on everyone, liberal, conservative and moderate alike in the end.

Conservative Chris Loesch, music producer and husband of radio host
and CNN contributor Dana Loesch, had his Twitter account suspended on
Sunday. He was apparently targeted by leftist users who utilized the
"Block & Report Spam" function to trigger the social media account's
automatic spam algorithm. He was notified of his suspension via an
email from Twitter claiming it was due to multiple unsolicited mentions
to other users. "You will need to change your behavior to continue using
Twitter," the email admonished.

"I never threatened anyone and am
careful about being concise with what I write especially in public,"
Mr. Loesch told The Washington Times. "They were going to make me sign
this note that said one more infraction and I would be permanently
banned. I wasn't going to do that so I wrote emails to some of their
people."

Supporters initiated by fellow conservatives Ben Howe and
Jerome Hudson began sending tweets with a "#FreeChrisLoesch" hashtag.
Retweets soon had it trending as one of the top 10 messages being sent
in the United States. A couple of hours later, his account was
reinstated only to be mysteriously suspended again within an hour. So
the campaign was renewed, this time asking Twitter to
"#FreeChrisLoeschAgain".

Mr. Loesch believes the spam-reporting
campaign was kicked off by comments he made in defense of his wife. "It
was business as usual for her I suppose," he said. "Veiled threats, rape
and murder comments, the typical liberal misogynist slag. Being the
chivalrous and testosterone filled being I am requires me to protect
the woman I love and call out the haters for being the 'anonymous
internet tough guys' they are...Needless to say they don't like being
called out and struck back by reporting me as a spammer or worse."

Not an isolated incident either as many others have suffered the same problem, a list of which Twitchy provides.

It is not a matter of just believing that progressives were behind a targeted campaign, these geniuses were stupid enough to actually send out tweets announcing that they were flag spam abusing the system with the intent of causing trouble.

Several users sent out tweets bragging about getting Mr. Loesch blocked,
including one claiming "my life job to make conservatives lives
miserable."

Sunday, April 29, 2012

The New York Sun and the Catholic News Agency both describe a video clip of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius when questioned before in a House Education and Workforce Committee hearing regarding the controversial HHS contraception mandate and about the legality of it and previous Supreme Court decisions confirming religious freedom.

“I'm not a
lawyer, and I don't pretend to understand the nuances of the
constitutional balancing tests,” Sebelius told Representative Trey Gowdy
(R–SC) during an April 26 hearing.

In her responses to
subsequent questions, the secretary admitted she was unaware of Supreme
Court cases stretching back several decades, in which religious
believers' rights against government intrusion were upheld by the court.

Gowdy had asked Sebelius to explain the legal basis for what the
secretary called an “appropriate balance between respecting religious
freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”

“There
are only three 'balancing' tests that I am aware of, when it comes to
matters of constitutional significance,” Gowdy told Sebelius. The HHS
secretary was questioned about the contraception rule during a House
Education and Workforce Committee hearing on her department's 2013
budget.

Gowdy cited the “rational basis” test – which involves the
legitimacy of a state's interest in legislation – as well as the
criteria of “intermediate scrutiny” and “strict scrutiny,” which judges
apply in order to gauge a law's relevance to fundamental state concerns.

When Sebelius responded that she did not understand the
“nuances” of these tests, she was pressed by Gowdy to explain why she
regarded the contraception mandate as constitutionally valid. The rule
has been criticized for requiring religious groups to cooperate in
providing sterilization and abortifacients.

“This mandate is going to wind up in the Supreme Court,” the South Carolina representative declared.

“We
can talk about the politics all we want to. I want to talk about the
law,” he told Sebelius. “I want to talk about balancing religious
liberty with whatever else you think it's appropriate to balance it with
– because you used the word 'balance.'”

“Which of those three tests is the appropriate test to use when considering religious liberty?”
“I
am not going to wade into constitutional law,” Sebelius responded. “We
are implementing the (health care reform) law that was passed by the
Congress, signed by the president, which directed our department to
develop a package of preventive health services for women.”

Sebelius
said she agreed with the statement that government could not “force
certain religious beliefs on its citizens.” When asked why this could
not happen, she cited “the separation of church and state,” a phrase not
found in the U.S. Constitution.
“It's the Constitution,” Gowdy replied, citing the First Amendment which guarantees the “free exercise of religion.”

Sebelius
also agreed with Gowdy's statement that government could not “decide
which religious beliefs are acceptable and not acceptable.” This, she
acknowledged, is “part of our Constitution.”

“So, before this
rule was promulgated,” Gowdy continued, referring to the federal
contraception mandate, “did you read any of the Supreme Court cases on
religious liberty?”

“I did not,” Sebelius responded.

The
representative proceeded to ask the Health and Human Services secretary
whether she was familiar with the outcomes of several cases pitting
state interests against religious believers' claims under the First
Amendment.

Sebelius agreed with Gowdy that the state had a “compelling interest in having an educated citizenry.”

“So
when a state said, 'You have to send your children to school until a
certain age,' and a religious group objected because they did not want
to send their children to school until that certain age, do you know who
won?” he asked. “It went to the Supreme Court.”

The 1970s case,
Wisconsin v. Yoder, is considered a landmark in U.S. jurisprudence.
Sebelius said she did not know its outcome. “The religious group won,”
Gowdy informed her.

“I think the state has a compelling interest
in banning animal sacrifice,” he continued. “When a state banned the
practice of animal sacrifice and a religious group objected, it went to
the Supreme Court. Do you know who won that?”

“I do not, sir,”
Sebelius responded. She was again informed that the religious group
prevailed, in the 1993 case of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah.

“When
a religious group objected to having a certain license tag on their
cars, it went to the Supreme Court,” Gowdy said, in an apparent
reference to the 1976 case of Wooley v. Maynard. “Do you know who won?”

Sebelius said she was unaware of this outcome as well.

“The religious group won,” Gowdy told her.

The
congressman also noted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's
recent 9-0 loss in the Supreme Court. The commission accused a Lutheran
church and school of retaliatory firing, but lost the case when all nine
justices upheld the school's right to choose employees on religious
grounds.

“So when you say you 'balanced' things,” Gowdy said,
“can you see why I might be seeking a constitutional balancing, instead
of any other kind?”

“I do,” Sebelius said, “and I defer to our
lawyers to give me good advice on the Constitution. I do not pretend to
be a constitutional lawyer.”

“Is there a legal memo that you
relied on?” Gowdy asked. “At least when Attorney General Holder made his
recess appointments, there was a legal memo that he relied on. Is there
one that you can share with us?”

“Attorney General Holder clearly
runs the Justice Department and lives in a world of legal memos,”
Sebelius responded, saying she “relied on discussions.”

According to Gallup, 92 percent of U.S. registered voters consider the economy either extremely (45 percent) or very important (47 percent) to their vote in this year's presidential election.

Rasmussen and Gallup are not the only pollsters that find the economy to be listed as the top concern during the 2012 election campaign season. Every poll conducted dealing with priorities which list the economy in the issues category, finds it to be the top concern.

This includes 2012 polling by CBS News/New York Times, Reuters/Ipsos, CNN/ORC and ABC News/Washington Post.

Heading into the November 2012 presidential election, the economy is likely to be the major concern spurring voters to the polls and barring a complete reversal in the U.S. economy, Barack Obama is in trouble in his reelection campaign.

Even as the Global War On Terror
has been declared *over* by our politicians, Veterans in both the US
and Canada are having to fight their own governments to receive the
benefits they have earned in service to their countries.

As our
Veterans have fulfilled their part of the contract, it is apparent that
our governments feel no need to follow through with their part of the contract for our Veterans.

Our
Veterans are not being quiet - and neither should they. What follows
is but one letter by one Veteran to the Prime Minister of Canada,
printed here with his permission:

I would first off like to thank you for being in breach of the contract between you and the soldier of Canada.

You
as the Commander and Chief of the Canadian Military have shown the
Canadian people what real leadership is all about, and what not to do
while leading.

It would have been so nice if you had of served,
if so you would be standing up for our soldiers and supporting them
like a real leader would do.

The people of this great nation
live in a free world due to the efforts of our soldier from World War
II up to present day conflicts such as Afghanistan. Without the
soldier, I shudder to think were we would be and what kind of country
Canada would be.

You have some of the best trained soldiers in
the world and what thanks have you showed them other than what it is
like for a country to turn their backs on them in time of need. They
have given so much to their country and in return the government has
spit on them and their families for a superior effort in support of
people all over the world.

I was watching a show the other day
called “The Unit” and thought wow if the PM would only watch that maybe
he would get it? I was (SSF) Special Service force trained and can
totally relate to what they do on this show.

It takes a special
breed to be a soldier and be willing to die for your country for what
is right. We are proud of what we do, we respond to orders and stand
behind our leadership, no question ask and do it knowing that we may
not come back alive and we know that is all part of the life and do
what is right to defend the weak and the people that need our skills.

Now
just think about that and next time you are looking in the mirror and
walking around free, think about the soldier and what they have
sacrificed for that freedom. You owe a little more to the troops who
have given so much for your freedom. You are the Commander and Chief
and are you really doing the troop right by how you are handling
things? Canada should be writing them an opened cheque for what the
have done for the freedom you have, just remember that that but really
who am I but just a soldier. You are the leader not me. If I was the
leader I would be doing thing way differently than you. But you have an
excuse, you never have been in uniform and to you we are just tools to
be used to complete your job, disposable really. So, I can understand
why you really don’t care. It is not your fault because you are
ignorant to what we do and what we are really all about. Real leaders
lead with both their hearts as well as their head.

Thank you so much for your support.

All the best from one of your soldiersDan Slack, Sgt Ret.

Sgt Slack is not the only Veteran who is making his voice heard. Equitas
is a group of Veterans that is launching a class action suit against
the government of Canada, to ensure that the government fulfils their
contractual obligations to our finest. Check out Equitas here.

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Friday night news dump:
President Obama has decided to provide $192 million to the Palestinian
Authority despite Congress’s freeze on PA funding after its president,
Mahmoud Abbas, attempted to declare statehood unilaterally last
September, in violation of the PA’s treaty commitments.

Obama’s “waiver” of the restrictions on Congress’s Palestinian
Accountability Act was first reported in the foreign press (AFP), which
is where Americans generally need to go to get news about what the U.S.
administration is up to. A report from the Times of Israel is here. [Hat tip, Creeping Sharia.] The New York Times, evidently too busy reporting on how much Israel sucks, did not find this story fit to print.

White House spinmeister Tommy Vietor stated that President Obama made
the decision to pour American taxpayer dollars into Palestinian coffers
in order to ensure “the continued viability of the moderate PA
government.” He added the claim that, as the report puts it, “the PA had
fulfilled all its major obligations, such as recognizing Israel’s right
to exist, renouncing violence and accepting the Road Map for Peace.”

In the real world, the very immoderate PA has reneged on all its
commitments. In addition to violating its obligations by unilaterally
declaring statehood, the PA has also agreed to form a unity government
with Hamas, a terrorist organization that is the Palestinian branch of
the Muslim Brotherhood. The PA continues to endorse terrorism against
Israel as “resistance.” Moreover, the PA most certainly does not
recognize Israel’s right to exist. Back in November, for example, Adil
Sadeq, a PA official writing in the official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, declared that Israelis

have a common mistake, or misconception by which
they fool themselves, assuming that Fatah accepts them and recognizes
the right of their state to exist, and that it is Hamas alone that
loathes them and does not recognize the right of this state to exist.
They ignore the fact that this state, based on a fabricated [Zionist]
enterprise, never had any shred of a right to exist…

In sum, everything Obama is saying about Palestinian compliance is a
lie. Even if we were not broke, we should not be giving the PA a dime.
To borrow money so we can give it to them is truly nuts.

I am not critical in any way, shape or form over Obama's use of the death of bin Laden in his reelection campaign.

Any candidate up for reelection will use anything that happens under their tenure that gave them a "bounce" in ratings at the time of the original event. It is expected in politics and there is not a thing wrong with it.

With that said, those making the point that Obama once claimed he didn't want to "trot out this stuff as trophies" and he didn't want to "spike the football," are all just as valid politicking as is Obama's use of the one thing that has happened in his time at the White House that gave him a bounce, short lived as it was.

Additionally, those pointing out Obama's own words in 2008 against Hillary Clinton, when he said "It’s ironic that she would borrow the President’s tactics in her own campaign and invoke bin Laden to score political points," is fair game as well.

Using a politicians own words and public statements is considered fair game and it should be. In politics there is nothing that makes a more powerful argument against a candidate than showing their own previous arguments, which when applied at a later date, attacks their very own actions.

What I question is Obama's timing and who in his reelection campaign decided that at the start of the general campaigning when the fight is more or less between two clear options, is when the bin Laden football should be bounced.

Not including the post-9/11 response, the average presidential approval rating bounces up 13 percent for an average of 22 weeks. (See history on presidential bumps after major events)

Due to the stalling economy, a rise in gas prices, unemployment stubbornly remaining over 8 percent and a host of other issues, Obama's approval ratings after bin Laden's death only jumped 9 points and only lasted 4 weeks. Both those numbers fell short of historical averages.

This makes the timing of playing the bin Laden card a serious call on Obama's judgement. The initial bounce wasn't large,and lasted only a month so even if he garners a small rise from it now, it will be gone by next week. He should have waited until closer to election because by November, the electorate will be sick and tired of hearing the name bin Laden.

If Obama was only trying to play to his liberal base, he could tout his health care law's passage, his stimulus plan, his rejection of Keystone, in other words his liberal agenda, but since it is a general election, he finds he cannot "spike" those particular balls because the people he needs to win reelection, Independents, are not thrilled with any of those decisions, laws or his political agenda as the majority of Americans already say Obama is too liberal.

Let’s drill this down a little further. Very few polls offer much more than this when it comes to what independent voters are thinking, but Quinnipiac does. Here are some interesting results from that poll:

-37 percent of independents have a favorable view of Obama, compared to 56 percent with an unfavorable view.

-37 percent of independents believe that Obama deserves to be reelected, compared to 58 percent who do not.

-28 percent of independents approve of Obama’s handling of the economy, compared to 67 percent who disapprove.

Gallup in January 2012 found that a record high of 40 percent of Americans are identified as Independents in 2011. More Americans identify as Democrats than as Republicans, 31 percent to 27 percent.

When Independents are counted as leaning towards Republican or Democrat, that 4 percent lead Democrats have in American's identifications turns into a 45 percent to 45 percent tie.

Gallup also found, in another poll, that for the third straight year conservatives have outnumbered moderates and were nearly double liberals in political ideology. 40 percent of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35 percent as moderate, and 21 percent as liberal.

Currently, the largest segment of independents describe their views as
moderate, while significantly more identify as conservative than as
liberal, 35 percent vs. 20 percent.

Self-identified Independents have hit a record high of 40 percent. Independents lean more toward a conservative ideology. Barack Obama never hits 50 percent approval among Independents in any poll. Independents trust Mitt Romney more than Barack Obama on 7 out of 8 key issues.

Bottom line is Barack Obama has a massive problem with Independent voters and that does not bode well for his reelection prospects.

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt
Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your
democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on
the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney
donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of
having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who
controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which
can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a
mistake donating that money.

Not just a thought experiment for Romney donors, Obama actually did it.

This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled
"Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post,
the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had
donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having
"less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the
extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the
wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many
Americans."

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors
who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin
Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes.
Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and
Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil.
Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a
"bitter foe of the gay rights movement."

These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens
nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not
one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S.
leader who is publicly assaulting them.

These donors real crime? They aren't donating to Obama.

The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that
they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has
shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and
a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his
opponents.

So, if you think Obama's policies are destroying America. If you think Barack Obama has violated your constitutional rights with Obamacare, the HHS abortion mandate, the individual mandate, etc.... And if you think Obama's out-of-control deficits, spending, national debt, high unemployment, lousy economy growth numbers, are all taking America in the wrong direction and you want him removed from office in November 2012.

Well, you are betting against America then in the mind of Barack Obama.

Here is the site mentioned above and clearly states it is paid for by Obama for America.

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.2 percent in the first quarter of 2012 (that
is, from the fourth quarter to the first quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter of 2011, real GDP increased 3.0 percent.

There will be predictable spin on this from Obama supporters and liberals across the Internet. They will say, this isn't good but it is better than what estimates back in December said it would be which was around 1.8%.

That is true, but when the economy appeared to pick up and growth rated was estimated at 2.7%, Obama and company touted it as "the economy is growing" and words like the economic growth is "speeding up" were bandied about, despite warnings that the pattern upward would stall, go down again, up again and hold no consistent growth trend.

They will also say, they already are, "don't get too worried" this is just the first pass and it could be adjusted upward or downward... later on.

More spin will come as Barack Obama predictably will go on and on about "The Buffet Rule", raising taxes which he has touted as a fix-all for the economy.

(CBS News) Expanding on his reasons to support the "Buffett Rule,"
President Obama said it is "not just about fairness" but economic
"growth" as well. (Watch in video above.)

"Now, this is not just about fairness. This is also about growth," the president said in his weekly address.
"It's about being able to make the investments we need to strengthen
our economy and create jobs. And it's about whether we as a country are
willing to pay for those investments."

Raising taxes is about growth says Obama. Pretty clear statement and one we have heard from Obama, Democrats and liberals consistently.

Obama knows better. Obama has known better from the start of his term.

Forbes contributor Charles Kadlec brings attention to Obama's first Chair of his Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), Christina D. Romer, who chaired the CEA from January 28, 2009 – September 3, 2010.

In a paper entitled: “The Macrcoeconomic Effects of Tax Changes” published by the prestigious American Economic Review in June 2010 (during her tenure at the White House),
she stated: “In short, tax increases appear to have a very large,
sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output.”

This is the complete opposite of what we have been hearing over and over again from the Obama administration as he continues to try to pit one group of people against another with his class warfare rhetoric.

Now let's take a look at the tax hikes we have seen already from the Obama administration.

There is a list of 21 of them, some have gone into effect and some are not due to go into effect until January 2013, coincidentally, after Obama's bid for reelection in November 2012.

Dividing them into two groups. Those that have already been implemented and those due to be implemented. (Unless the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare aka PPACA, since most are embedded into Obama's health care law)

1. A 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco: On February 4, 2009, just sixteen days into his Administration, Obama signed into law
a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco, a hike of
61 cents per pack. The median income of smokers is just over $36,000
per year.

14. Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Tax
hike of $0.4 bil/took effect Jan. 1 2010): The special tax deduction in
current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed
if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical
services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

21. Obamacare Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”
(Tax hike of $4.5 billion/took effect immediately). This provision
allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other
legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action
lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

To Be Implemented in 2013

4. Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income (Tax hike of $123 billion/takes effect Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income
earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This
would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93

9. Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax”
(Tax hike of $13 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of
$2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one
group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and
onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of
families with special needs children in the United States, and many of
them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one
leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

11. Obamacare "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI
(Tax hike of $15.2 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Currently, those facing
high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to
the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross
income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of
AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

2. Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (takes
effect in Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying”
health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of
the following

1 Adult

2 Adults

3+ Adults

2014

1% AGI/$95

1% AGI/$190

1% AGI/$285

2015

2% AGI/$325

2% AGI/$650

2% AGI/$975

2016 +

2.5% AGI/$695

2.5% AGI/$1390

2.5% AGI/$2085

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners,
those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and
hardship cases (determined by HHS).Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337

3. Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax (takes effect Jan.
2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one
employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an
additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees.
Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee
actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the
employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a
waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax
per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

Now let's go back to what Obama's first Chair of his Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), Christina D. Romer, said, while she was still working for Obama: “In short, tax increases appear to have a very large,
sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output.”

Barack Obama has presided over the worst recovery in history and it was his own policies that guaranteed that dubious place in historical recoveries.

Yet it is 100% assured that Barack Obama will tell Americans during his reelection campaign, that raising taxes is about "growth."

Thursday, April 26, 2012

You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of
dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance
exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in
the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister
confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met
this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it
has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount
of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of
increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the
money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either
way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given
that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of
the largest corporations in the Americas.

Judicial Watch obtained the Secret Service records pursuant to an August
2010 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. (The agency notified
Judicial Watch that it withheld 78 pages of responsive records in their
entirety.) Judicial Watch obtained the U.S. Air Force records pursuant
to a March 5, 2012, FOIA lawsuit.

According to U.S. Department of Defense’s 2010 published hourly rates,
the total cost of flying Michelle Obama and her guests from Camp
Andrews to Malaga and then to Mallorca and back to the United States was
$199,323.75. This is based on approximately 17 hours and 15 minutes of
total flying time.

The 15-member flight crew stayed at Tryp Guadalmar, a nearby motel.
Lodging cost was $10,290.60 and car rental cost was $2,633.50. Food cost
was $876.30, including $57.68 for four bottles of maple syrup and a
package of pancake mix.

The U.S. Air Force concealed the number of civilian passengers who
accompanied Mrs. Obama on the five-day trip, citing an exemption to FOIA
law. (The New York Times
previously reported that Mrs. Obama brought along one of her daughters
and “two friends and four of their daughters, as well as a couple of
aides and a couple of advance staff members.”)

Secret Service records,
meanwhile, show that the costs to the agency for the vacation were
$254,461.20. This total includes $26,670.61 for a chauffeur tour of
Costa del Sol and $50,078.78 for a travel planning company SET P&V,
S.L. (George Soros is 50% owner of the travel company.) Taxpayers also paid the bill for separate lodging for a dog and its handler.

In August 2010, Michelle Obama, her daughter and friends embarked on what the press described
as a “whirlwind tour of Spain,” which included visits to the coastal
towns, shopping and a lunch date with the country’s King and Queen.
While the White House claims the Obamas “paid their own way” for the
vacation, the records detail some of the required security and other
costs to taxpayers for the private trip.

Remember that South Africa trip where the Obama children were listed as "senior staff" on the flight manifest? Well Judicial Watch has received the totals for that trip as well.

Judicial Watch previously obtained documents detailing costs for a June
21-27, 2011, trip taken by Michelle Obama, her family and her staff to
South Africa and Botswana. Judicial Watch received mission expense
records and passenger manifests for the Africa trip that described costs
of $424,142 for the flight and crew alone. Other expenses, such as
off-flight food, transportation, security, etc. were not included.

Steve M., from a blog named "No More Mister Nice Blog" has a conspiracy theory to top all conspiracy theories. This one surrounding the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case.

Let's start at the beginning of his post:

BooMan refers us to an extraordinarily sympathetic story
about George Zimmerman from Reuters. He got a gun because he'd been
menaced by a pit bull! He has black people in his family tree! And on
and on.

The snark stems from a Reuter's story where they dared to actually, *GASP* do some research into George Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin and claims it was self-defense,.

They reported on Zimmerman's past, which included neighbors statements, one of which was an African- American women who lived in the neighborhood who declined to be identified for fear that she would suffer backlash for being black and speaking up for Zimmerman.

In other words, the "sympathetic piece" was a complete biography of Zimmerman.

The next paragraph is actually a WTF moment:

Look, folks, we need to face facts: the chances of a conviction in this
case are basically zero. It's just not going to happen. Too much is
being put out there so that potential jurors will give Zimmerman the
benefit of the doubt.

Notice Steve M. neglected to mention how "much" was put out there before the media decided to actually report facts. Like when NBC's "Today" show deliberately edited an audio 911 call where they cut out the part where the 911 operator asked Zimmerman "And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?”

In the NBC segment, Zimmerman says: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

The full version, though, unfolds like this:

Zimmerman:
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something.
It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”

Or when ABC produced a video and claimed Zimmerman had no injuries to his head despite police accounts saying he did, just to later report, oh yeah, there are gashes on his head now that we actually looked!!!! CBS News then went on to repeat ABC's original claim.

The big three, NBC News, ABC News and CBS News, all produced so-called evidence against Zimmerman before they had to backtrack and report the truth which was completely contrary to their original reporting.

Oooops!!!

Did Stevey forget how the media tried and convicted Zimmerman in the court of public opinion for weeks before they bothered to actually research any facts?

No, Stevey is too worried that the truth will give a "benefit of the doubt" to Zimmerman with no mention of how the lies could have tainted a potential jury against Zimmerman, before the truths were reported.

Moving along to Steve's convoluted conspiracy theory now:

I'm trying not to have the paranoid thought that Rick Scott, possibly
after conversations with national figures on the right, arranged for a
special prosecutor because he thought it was better for the right if
Zimmerman was arrested and tried than if he remained free. What I mean
is this: Assuming Zimmerman is tried and acquitted, I suspect the
amoral SOBs on the right hope there's an unpleasant reaction on
the part of Trayvon Martin's supporters. I think they want us to riot,
or at least engage in isolated acts of violence. I don't know when a
trial is likely to take place, but I think they'd love it if the trial
happened before the election and an acquittal led to a riot that they
could hang around President Obama's neck. Even if this happens after
the election, I imagine they think it's always good to be able to say,
"See? We're civilized and they're not."

So, to Steve's mind, the Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, along with the prosecutor, Angela Corey, who charged Zimmerman with second degree murder, bypassing a grand jury to do so, along with police officer statements from the night of the shooting which described injuries to Zimmerman, and 'national figures" on the right, all conspired to charge Zimmerman knowing that he would be acquitted.

The reason, using Steve's paranoid delusions, is so that when Zimmerman is acquitted, all the people listed above are hoping Zimmerman haters who were tainted originally with the media lies, will explode in Florida and start rioting and committing violence, just so that in November, Barack Obama can be blamed for the whole thing.

Basically everything that happened after the shooting, minus of course the media misrepresentation for the weeks before they actually reported facts, was all one large conspiracy to hang around Obama's neck in November.

Then Steve ends with a question:

Please tell me I'm crazy to think this.

Yes Steve, you are crazy. I would suggest those lil blue pills and maybe a nice rubber room with those pretty white straight jackets.

"....Obama wears shades, sings Al Green, dances with Ellen DeGeneres,
quaffs a Guinness, calls hip-hop megastar Kanye West a "jackass," and
"slow jams the news" with Jimmy Fallon in the latest political ad from
American Crossroads, the Karl Rove-linked "Super PAC." The ad uses the
president's rock-star status against him, painting the "cool" president
as having failed to help young voters.

"Four years ago America elected the biggest celebrity in the world. And
America got one cool president," says the ad. But three years after
Obama took office, more than half of recent college grads are jobless or
underemployed, many are moving back in with their parents and student
loans have skyrocketed.

"After 4 years of a celebrity president is your life any better?" asks the commercial."

The Republican National Committee has requested the Government Accountability Office to investigate Obama's recent campaign stops and stump speeches which are not being reimbursed by Obama's reelection campaign funds but instead is being funded by taxpayers.

But Obama's recent speeches, the RNC said in the letter, were "events
widely reported to be equivalent to campaign rallies." The committee's
case sees supporting evidence in a list of the states Obama has visited
this month, including the general election battlegrounds of Florida,
Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio.
It's a blurry line, to some extent.

"This speech was high on class warfare, slogans, and divisive
campaign-style rhetoric," the letter said of a recent official event
earlier this month in Florida.

When candidates travel by government means - such as a president
traveling by Air Force One to a campaign event - Federal Election
Commission regulations require the campaign to reimburse the government
at a market rate. Typically, this means campaigns pay the cost of
first-class airfare for the candidate and any campaign staffers. Travel
by Air Force One - which costs over $180,000 per hour - is much more expensive than the price tag for commercial seats.

Such scheduling allows "his reelection campaign to save on fuel for
Air Force One," the letter said. The government picks up an even greater
share of the total tab for a trip combining both campaign and official
events.

White House Spokesman Eric Schultz denies the Republican's allegations by claiming these trips to these battleground states, which include the stumps speeches and reelection rhetoric from Obama, are "the President’s official responsibility to get outside of Washington,
DC, hear from students, and discuss stopping interest rates on their
loans from doubling in July – just like Friday’s trip to Fort Stewart in
Hinesville, Georgia to meet with troops, veterans, and military
families is likewise part of the President’s official responsibilities."

That explanation and denial is being mocked by even the most liberal of media personalities, such as MSNBC's Mike O'Brien and Huffington Post White House correspondent Sam Stein.

How much longer do we have to pretend that these POTUS events aren't campaign events? Not that there's anything wrong with campaigning.

ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, ma'pilim [(Hebrew) - immigrants coming to Eretz-Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation] and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.

In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.

This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.

The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations.

Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland.

In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom- and peace-loving nations against the forces of Nazi wickedness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort, gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who founded the United Nations.

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.

ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel".

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations.

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

WE APPEAL to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream - the redemption of Israel.

PLACING OUR TRUST IN THE "ROCK OF ISRAEL", WE AFFIX OUR SIGNATURES TO THIS PROCLAMATION AT THIS SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE, ON THE SOIL OF THE HOMELAND, IN THE CITY OF TEL-AVIV, ON THIS SABBATH EVE, THE 5TH DAY OF IYAR, 5708 (14TH MAY,1948).

11 minutes later the following telegram was sent to Israel by the United States:

This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof.

The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the State of Israel.

Signed;

Harry S. Truman

The United States was the first nation to recognize the State of Israel. It was followed by by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's Iran, Guatemala, Iceland, Nicaragua, Romania, and Uruguay. And the armies of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Lebanon, and Syria invaded Israel. Israel was given only 10 days before there would be a massacre of every man, woman, child. But A MIRACLE OCCURRED THERE! They won their Independence with no weapons, no army, no navy, and no air force. The "experts" said that the nation will not last, could not last. But it has been 64 years.

The Obama administration found itself in front of the Supreme Court again today with the case of Arizona v. U.S. (11-182), this time arguing against Arizona's tough immigration law known as SB 1070, which was passed and then signed into law by AZ Governor Jan Brewer, giving the state more weapons to fight against illegal immigration.

News reports and analysis all indicate that today's questions by the Justices asking Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli to defend the Obama's administrations objections to Arizona protecting their state against illegal immigration was reminiscent to the harsh questioning for Verrilli in the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare arguments in late March.

The New York Times - "Justices Seem Sympathetic to Central Part of Arizona Law."

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. made clear that the case, like last month’s arguments over President Obama’s health care law, was about the allocation of state and federal power.

One particularly rocky moment for Verrilli is described by the NYT:

Most of the argument on Wednesday concerned the part of the law requiring state officials to check immigration status in some circumstances. That provision also requires that the immigration status of people who are arrested be determined before they are released.

Several justices said states were entitled to enact such provisions, which make mandatory practices that are already widespread.

“What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?” Justice Antonin Scalia asked.

Chief Justice Roberts said the state law merely requires that the federal government be informed of immigration violations and leaves enforcement decisions to it. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who is here illegally and who’s not,” he said.

Supreme Court justices on Wednesday appeared highly doubtful of the
Obama administration’s objections to a controversial immigration law in
Arizona.

The ideologically diverse group of justices pummeled
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. with a morning full of questions,
expressing serious doubts to the government’s claim that Arizona cannot
require state law enforcement officials to verify a person’s legal
status when they’re stopped on suspicion of committing a separate
offense.

More from The Hill article, linked above:

A final decision will not be reached until June, but the line of
questioning from the more liberal and conservative justices alike seemed
to indicate a belief that Arizona had a stronger case than the
government on at least two of the law's four provisions under question.

Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.

The Supreme Court appears likely to side with Arizona over a key part of its controversial anti-illegal immigration law, rejecting the Obama administration’s claim that the state overreached its authority by requiring local police to check the immigration status of people suspected of being in the country illegally.

The U.S. Supreme Court indicated Wednesday it appears ready to uphold one of the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law: a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally.
Wading into a highly divisive issue in the middle of a presidential campaign year, conservative and liberal justices who heard oral arguments on Wednesday morning seemed to find no strong objection to that section of the law, which also allows police to stop and arrest anyone they reasonably believe is in the country illegally.

Gov. Jan Brewer's issued a statement this morning regarding SB1070 hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court:

"Today, more than two years after I signed SB1070 into law, the State of
Arizona had its opportunity to defend this measure before the United
States Supreme Court. Many people never gave us a chance to get this
far, and it is only due to the continuing support and encouragement of
the American people that it was possible.

"Of course, we likely will not know the Court's decision for weeks. But I
am filled with optimism -- the kind that comes with knowing that
Arizona's cause is just and its course is true.

"On the day I signed SB1070, I called it 'another tool for our state to
use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal
government has refused to fix.'

Those words still hold true -- as I was reminded last week when I
returned to the border to visit law enforcement and ranchers who live
and work in southeastern Arizona.

"Their message: The job of securing the border is not done, not so long
as drugs and humans continue to be smuggled north in large numbers at
the direction of violent cartels and armed gangs.

As Governor, I have a duty to uphold the Constitution and a
responsibility to protect the people of Arizona. With SB1070, I am
confident we can do both."

Polling the for Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070, shows that public support for the law has grown since it's passage in 2010, with 65 to 68 percent of Americans supportive and 27 to 31 percent opposed. Two years ago, that split was 50-31 according to both Quinnipiac and Fox polling. (Source- Washington Post)